Mumbai Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vinayak Wasudeo Upadeo and anr. Vs. City of Nagpur Corporation and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR196; (2002)4BOMLR196; 2002(3)MhLj210
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. The petitioners in both the petitions are same. The prayers are almost identical and, therefore, the petitions have been heard together and can be conveniently disposed of by common order. 2. The petitioners are residents of Vinayak Apartments situated in Dhantoli area, near Lokmat Square, Nagpur City. Main grievance of the petitioners is that their fundamental right of leading peaceful and full life as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is seriously and continuously infringed by the respondents who have, according to the petitioners, commercialised the residential area and the apartments in which the petitioners are residing. According to the petitioners, this is an illegality, resulting in infringement of their fundamental rights and, therefore, appropriate writs under Article 226 of the Constitution are liable to issue. 3. It would be better to note prayers in Writ Petition No. 1119 of 1996 in extenso. '(a). issue a suitable writ, order or...
Nisha Eknath Shende and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR578; (2002)3BOMLR729; 2002(3)MhLj267
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs :--'a) The Education Officer be kindly directed to implement his order dated 21-10-1985 produced at Annexure No. 5 and this Hon'ble Court be pleased to further direct that the payments of due salaries be made to the petitioners without any delay;b) By suitable writ, order or direction the respondent No. 4 be directed to submit the salary bills before the Education Officer for purpose of payment of arrears of salary;c) The Education Officer be kindly directed to consider the cases of petitioners 1 and 2 for purposes of approval for the further period of 84-85 and 85-86 and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 be directed to pay the salary of the period 84-85 and 85-86;d) By suitable writ, order or direction it be kindly declared that the petitioners 1 and 2 are in continuous service of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4;e) Any other suitable writ, order or direction for proper adjudication of the subject matter be kindly...
J.T. Chindalia Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR453; 2002(3)BomCR482; 2002(3)MhLj511
P.S. Patankar, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging his order of reversion dated 28-3-1990, by which he came to be reverted from the post of Assistant to Record Clerk.2. A few facts are as under : The petitioner was employed as a Peon with respondent No. 1 from 1-11-1971. The petitioner passed S.S.C. examination (new course) held in April 1979. He came to be promoted as a Record Clerk on 1-1-1983. The petitioner was interviewed for selection to the post of Assistant on 11-8-1989. He came to be selected for the said promotional post on 1-9-1989. He came to be appointed by the respondent No. 1 as an Assistant by the order dated 23-9-1989. By passing order on 28-3-1990, the petitioner came to be reverted to the post of Record Clerk.3. The petitioner filed this petition on 17-5-1990. We may state here that the petitioner also passed departmental examination held on 12-7-1993 and the petitioner was again promoted as Assistant by...
Klin-o-pack Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR85; 2002(4)BomCR134; 2003(85)ECC766; 2003(154)ELT359(Bom); 2002(4)MhLj686
V.C. Daga, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division VII, Bombay-1, dated 15th January, 1988, so far as it denies right to opt out of Modvat scheme during the financial year and confirmed demand against the petitioners in the sum of Rs. 77,977.96 and Rs. 67,041,64. The facts in nutshell are as under:2. The petitioners are a small scale industry duly registered with the Director of Industries, Bombay. The petitioners inter alia manufacture aluminium collapsible tubes classifiable under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 8512.11 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Under the Finance Act, 1986, the provisions of Rule 57-A to Rule 57-J were introduced by way of amendment to the said Rules (popularly described as 'Modvat Rules'). Under the Modvat scheme while making payment of excise duty on finished goods, the duty on the raw materials used by the manufacturers are adjusted or in other words, if a...
Sukumabai Vs. Chandgonda Kalgonda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom131; 2002(5)BomCR641
1. The appellant, the original plaintiff, is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court in the regular civil appeal No. 44 of 1985 filed by the original defendant who was ' aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court which decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. In appeal the lower appellate Court has quashed and set aside the said judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal filed by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 who was the original land owner did not contest the suit, and appeal and her name was deleted. The present second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who is aggrieved by the order passed by the lower appellate Court.2. The facts and contentions in both the above appeals are identical except the name of the defendant No. 1, and therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by the present common judgment, and order. For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the plaintiff and...
Ratanlal Biharilal Atal and anr. Vs. Amravati Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR568; 2002(4)BomCR123
V.M. Kande, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the sanction of plan granted by the respondents 1 to 5 to respondent No. 6 for construction of a commercial complex (four storeyed) i.e. basement, ground plus four floors on Plot No. 1, Sheet No. 56(B), Kamal Colony, Morshi road, Amravati. The petitioners also challenge the grant of building permit and commencement certificate issued by respondent No. 1 for the construction of the said commercial complex to respondent No. 6.2. The petitioners who are having their buildings on the adjoining plot, have filed this petition, on the apprehension that the proposed construction of commercial complex carried out by respondent No. 6, will prove to be a serious annoyance to health and comfort of the inhabitants of neighbourhood including the petitioners. The petition is, therefore, filed as a public interest litigation. The other grievance of the petitioners, is that though the development plan sanctioned by the State Government was fo...
Daulatrao S/O Dashrath Dhonde Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)509; (2002)104BOMLR5
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 141 of 1997 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge. Ahmednagar to any other Court for trial in accordance with law.2. The petitioner is complainant in the State prosecution lodged against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to this petition for offence under Sections 498A and 304B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was the daughter of the petitioner who had committed suicide in the matrimonial house. On the complaint lodged by the petitioner the father of the deceased, prosecution was initiated against her husband and his parents i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The incident in question had taken place on 1.3.1997. The Sessions Case was scheduled to commence before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 8.1.2002. Naturally, the petitioner being the complainant had to be examined first. It appears that in spite of his being unwell, the petitioner had himself gone...
Santosh Baccharam Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)120; (2002)104BOMLR812
R.K. Batta, J.1. These appeals arise out of Sessions Case No. 87 of 1995 (Crime No. 27/94) which has been decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli vide judgment dated 8.1.1998. The prosecution had charged five accused for offences under Sections 302 and 364 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Section 401 read with 34 and 109 of the I.P.C. and Section 120-B of the I.P.C.2. The prosecution had in all examined 21 witnesses in support of the said charges. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli vide judgment dated 8.1.1998 held accused No. 1 Pramod Akaram Shinde, accused No. 2 Santosh B. Patil and Accused No. 3 Dattatraya Manohar Toraskar guilty for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 302 of the I.P.C. Section 364 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. The said three accused have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine. The substantive...
Meghdev Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC881Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal has come up for hearing before me on the question of refund. The appellant mixes phenol formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde to produce resins which fell under item 15A(1) of the then existing Schedule I to the Central Excise Act. The question involved is whether the mixing of phenol formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde would amount to manufacture and the resultant product is marketable or not. The said issue was decided in favour of the appellants as reflected in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. etc. v. CCE, Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1988 [1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)]. When the matter was disposed of Rs. 63,201.60 was paid by the appellant before me to the department. It should be mentioned here that the amount was paid by an adjustment from the refund claim of the appellant pending before the adjudicating authorities. The question before me is that after the disposal of the case by the Supreme Court by its order dated 14-2-199...
N.C.R. Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Prev.), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC897Tri(Mum.)bai
2. N.C.R. Corporation India Ltd. (N.C.R. for short) imported at Chennai 4 models of goods, which is described as automated teller machine (ATM for short), A total of 78 such machines was imported during the period from July, 2000 to February, 2001. The goods were supplied by N.C.R.Corporation of the United Kingdom, of which N.C.R. Corporation India Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary. Both N.C.R. Corporation of UK and N.C.R. Corporation of India are wholly owned subsidiary of N.C.R.Corporation U.S.A. In the bills of entry that were filed for clearance, the importer claimed the benefit of exemption contained in Entry 227 of the table to Notification 61/2000. This grants partial exemption from duty to automated teller machine. The goods were assessed to duty extending the benefit of this exemption. In determining their assessable value, the officers of the department took note of the circular issued by the Special Valuation Branch of Chennai Custom House which ordered that no addition was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »